View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
26 July 1906

2^nd Parliament · 3^rd Session

QUESTION
- DEPORTATION OF KANAKAS
QUESTION
- TARIFF COMMISSION’S REPORTS
QUESTION
- POSTAGE ON HANSARD
QUESTION
- POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT: TASMANIA
TRANSFERS OF OFFICERS
TELEPHONE REGULATIONS
PAPERS
ELECTORAL BILL
- Second Reading
CANTEEN BILL
- Second Reading
PRINTING COMMITTEE’S REPORT
- Rights of Senate
GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S RESIDENCES BILL
ADJOURNMENT
- Division Bells

The President took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1820

QUESTION

DEPORTATION OF KANAKAS

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice - .

What steps sue being taken by the Commonwealth for the deportation of kanakas before or at the end of this year?
Will the Government lay on the table of this House aprecis of the correspondence between the Government of the State of Queensland and the Government of the Commonwealth relative to such proposed deportation ?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

-The answers to the honorable senator’s questions are as follow : -

The Government are in communication with the Government of Queensland respecting the appointment of certain State officials as officers under section 8 of the ‘Pacific Islanders Act of 1901, who are to be authorized to bring labourersnot employed under agreements before a Court, in order that their deportation may be ordered this year. ‘ Arrangements are also in progress for a general repatriation next year.
As soon as the correspondence is complete the Government will submit the papers for the perusal of members of the Senate, if that course is then desired.

page 1820

QUESTION

TARIFF COMMISSION’S REPORTS

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister of Defence, upon notice -

If the Government will, this session, submit to Parliament for its consideration, all reports of the Tariff Commission presented oh or before the 31st of August next?

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

– Yes, if possible.

Senator CLEMONS:

– Upon that answer, which is not an answer to my question, I desire to ask the Minister if the Government will indicate any definite date at which it will submit to Parliament, for its consideration, any reports that up to that time have been presentedby the Tariff Commission?

Senator PLAYFORD:

-I cannot answer that question without having consulted my colleagues. I would ask the honorable senator to give notice of thequestion.

Senator CLEMONS:

– I beg to give notice of thequestion for to-morrow.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is too late now for thehonorable senator to give notice of a question.

page 1820

QUESTION

POSTAGE ON HANSARD

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

asked’ the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to amend the Post and Telegraph Act during the present session in such a way as to provide for the transmission of Hansard through the Post Office at newspaper rates?

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows : -

This matter has been noted for consideration in connexion with any amendment of the Post and Telegraph Act which may be found necessary.

Senator Stewart:

– That is not a reply.

page 1820

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT: TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:
for Senator O’Keefe

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster- General, upon notice -

Has any official report been received of wholesale irregularities or frauds alleged by the Melbourne Age of the 25th July to have occurred in the Post Offices in Tasmania?
If no such report has been received, will the Minister inquire ‘into the allegations?

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

– The whole matter is now under consideration.

page 1820

TRANSFERS OF OFFICERS

Motion (by Senator Stewart) agreed to-

That there be laid upon the table of the Senate a return of the expenses incurred in connexion with transfers of officers of the various Departments in the several States in each financial year since Federation ; and showing the amounts expended ontrain. steamer, coach, and other fares respectively ; also on conveyance of furniture and effects.

page 1820

TELEPHONE REGULATIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honorable senator does not move the motion when it is called on, it will disappear from the notice-paper.

page 1820

PAPERS

Senator PLAYFORD laid upon the table the following papers: -

Report on the bursting of M.L.E. Rifles, by C. Napier Hake, F.I.C., and Thomas R. Lyle, M.A., D.Sc.

Report by tlie Director of the Naval Forces 011 the Naval Defence of the Commonwealth of Australia, for the year 1905.

Annual Report for the year 1905, by the InspectorGeneral of the Commonwealth Military Forces, Major-General H. Finn.

Report by the Military Board for the year 1905.

The Clerk laid upon the table the following paper : -

Return to order of Senate : Travelling ex;penses of General Officer Commanding and State Commandants.

page 1821

ELECTORAL BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

– Yes. Two voting machines have been in actual operation within the precincts of the ‘building. Honorable senators were invited to put them to every test, and apparently they failed to find any flaw in them. I recognise, however, that before any voting machine could be adopted the electoral authorities would ‘have to toe thoroughly satisfied that it met all requirements. So far as I have been able to learn, the. only objection made by the electoral authorities to the use of the machines - I have been told this unofficially - was that there cannot be a recount of the votes in the case of a dispute. That objection overlooks the fact that there is noi’ the same necessity for a recount when a machine is used, as when ballot-papers are employed, because with a machine the counting goes on automatically, and there are no informal votes. There can be no fault in the counting, because it is done automatically, -and in the case of some machines a bell is struck as soon as a vote is recorded. Consequently, if the mechanism got out of order, the returning officer would immediately know it. Therefore, there is not the same necessity for a recount when a machine is used as in the case of ballotpapers, where the accuracy of the count’ depends upon those who are conducting it. If honorable senators will turn to Vol. I. of the Papers of the House of Representatives for the session 1904 they will find the report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of elections held under the Electoral Act. The possibility of voting machines being used at elections was brought under the notice of that Committee, and four representatives of inventors gave evidence, and explained the working of their machines. The Committee, in its report, page 323, section 18, said: -

In considering the complaints of delay in expediting the making up of results of elections, your Committee took evidence as to the use of voting machines. Several different mechanical contrivances were placed before the Committee by Messrs. King Hedley, F. A. Peters, J. F. Higgins, and Horace Harding. It is apparent “that such contrivances may be of great value to populous polling-places in securing economy, expedition in the making up of results, and avoid-‘ ancc of informalities; but for various reasons -they are difficult to utilize in the outlying dis.tricts. Your Committee are not in a position to adjudicate satisfactorily upon the practical results of the use of such contrivances in other countries, or upon the value of the respective machines submitted to them, but consider that the Electoral Department should institute immediate inquiries to see if it is possible to adopt any of the machines in the large centres of population. The adoption would, of course, need statutory authority.

One of the representatives of the machines, Mr. King Hedley, gave evidence which is reported on page 407. He was examined as to the practicability of employing voting” machines under our present system, cr with the block vote, or with the preferential system of voting. He explained fully the use of his machine, and said, in answer to question 974, put to him by Mr. Fowler -

Any information which I give to the Committee may be authenticated by application to the proper authorities in the United States. The total vote passed at elections in Buffalo usually represents about 64 per cent, of the electors. When the ballot-papers were in use there were 165 electoral districts in that city, and the number of voters in each district ranged from 300 to 500. When the voting machines were installed, the number of districts were reduced to 108, and each contained from 500 to 800 electors.

Then he gave the cost of holding elections previous to the introduction of the machines, as compared with the cost after their introduction. The total cost from 1895 to 1898 was $198,514. For the four succeeding years, when electoral machines were in use, the total cost of elections was $130,000, or $68,000 less than under the ballot system. Mr. Joseph F. Higgins explained that the cost of the machine which he represented was about £12. Mr. Horace Harding explained that the machines in which he was interested could be supplied at from -£7 to each. It will be recognised that one of the chief items of cost in the conduct of elections is the printing of ballot-papers. If we were able to introduce a machine to meet all the requirements, it would be cheaper, there would be fewer officers, to be employed in the conduct of elections, and as soon as the polling, had ceased the returning officer immediately on opening the machine could give out the number of votes recorded. The consequence would be that as soon as the election was completed, the result would be known. On these grounds we are, I think, justified1 in giving to the electoral authorities power to make the necessary inquiries, when if they are satisfied they can come to Parliament and enable us to say that the approved machine shall be used in the conduct of our elections. One other amendment is made in the electoral law by means qf this Bill. It is one of considerable importance. It will be recollected that when the first Electoral Bill came before Parliament, in order to prevent slanderous printed matter being circulated’ prior to an election, a provision was inserted - section 180 of the Act of 1902 - which was intended to sheet home to those who were guilty of such practices, the re- sponsibility for the publication of the slanders. Section 180 reads -

In addition to bribery and undue influence, the following shall be illegal practices - (<z) Any publication of any electoral advertisement, handbill, or pamphlet, or any issue of any electoral notice without at the end thereof the name and address of the person authorizing the same, and on the face of the notice the name and address of the person authorizing the notice.

The next paragraph, b, is similar except that the following words are inserted between brackets - [Other than an advertisement in a .newspaper.]

It was held that if a pamphlet or handbill were issued without a printer’s name it would be impossible to trace the author, but in the case of the newspaper there were means of finding out the publisher. In the case of the newspaper there was some guarantee that some one would be responsible for the slander or libel. When the amending Bill was being dealt with in r905> paragraph a was amended to make it read similarly with paragraph b ; that is to say, section 57 of the amending Bill was made to read as follows : -

Section 180 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in paragraph (a), after the word “ advertisement,” “ other than- an advertisement announcing the holding of a meeting in a newspaper.”

Senator TRENWITH:

– Having said it in the Constitution, it is not necessary that we should say it again in a specific Statute. With the greatest possible regard for Senator Pearce, and with very great respect for his industry arid ability, I shall be called upon to vote against what is, to my mind, an entirely unnecessary measure.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– I recognise that I am paying the penalty of introducing a proposal which is new. At the same time I thank honorable senators for having paid the attention which they have to it. I am sorry that some of the critics of the Bill did not stay to listen, to my introductory remarks, and thai, having delivered_their own criticism, they have not remained to listen to my reply. I take it that honorable senators do not object to the Bill merely, because I am not in a position to recommend a particular voting machine. If they did it would be equivalent to saying that there must be an Act of Parliament to provide that a certain machine shall be adopted. Is that a feasible thing? Is the Senate the best body to judge the merits of any particular machine? Is not that a matter for the experts in the Electoral Department to determine? If that is the case, why do we need an Act of Parliament to specify a certain machine? That there are in existence machines which do fulfil all requirements no one would venture to deny. I am surprised that honorable senators have treated this proposal as if it had never been inquired into. Senator Trenwith, for instance, seemed1 to assume that, while some of us had investigated the merits of certain machines, Parliament as a body’ had practically ignored the question. In my opening speech I pointed out that these machines had been submitted to a Select Committee of the House of Representatives.

Senator Millen:

– It was not a Select Committee specially appointed to inquire into the merits of voting machines.

Senator PEARCE:

– I did not say that it was. It was not composed of novices. For the information of Senator Trenwith, I may mention that it was composed of Mr. Batchelor, who, as a State Minister, administered, I understand, an Electoral Act, and who has also been Minister of Home Affairs in the Commonwealth, Mr. Brown, Mr. Groom, who is today administering the Commonwealth Electoral Act, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Fowler, Sir William Lyne, who has had a long experience in State and Federal politics, Mr. Mauger, Mr. McDonald. Mr. McLean, -who has been Premier .of Victoria, and also a Commonwealth Minister, Mr. Poynton, Mr.

– I am not saying that it would be advisable to adopt voting machines at all polling places, but that their use would be economical in the populous centres. In view of the amendment made by clause 3 of this ‘Bill, and in view of the intention of the Government, as stated by the Minister, to introduce a measure dealing with the same subject, it would be extremely unwise for the Senate to reject the Bill, even if there be a majority against the introduction of voting machines. I therefore suggest that the second reading should be agreed to, and that if there is a majority against voting machines the clauses relating to them should be struck out. Certainly an amendment should Le made in the existing Act on the lines indicated bv me. But I earnestly trust that the Senate will not only pass the second reading, but in Committee will agree to those clauses which <?ive the necessary power to allow of the introduction of “a more up-to-date and economical system of voting.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Aves … … … 13

Noes … … … 14

Majority … … 1

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1832

CANTEEN BILL

Second Reading

Senator PULSFORD (New South

Wales) [3.59]. - I move -

That theBill be now read a secondtime.

– I was under the impression that the Bill goes further than Senator Neild is willing to go, but, of course, if the honorable senator desires an .extension of the provisions, all the better. The following notice was issued by the Naval Department of America on 3rd February, 1899 : -

After mature deliberation, the Department has decided that it is for the best interests of the service that alcoholic liquors on board ship, or within the limits of naval stations, be prohibited. Therefore, after the receipt of this order, commanding officers are forbidden to allow any malt or alcoholic liquor to be sold or issued to enlisted men, either on board ship, or within the limits of navy yards, naval stations, or barracks, except in the medical department.

It appeared that the orders issued in 1899 were not as effective as desired, and in 1901 the following law was passed1, and is at present in force: -

The sale or dealing in beer, wine, or any intoxicating liquors by any person in any ‘ post exchange, or canteen, or army transport, or upon any premises used for military purposes in the United. States, is hereby prohibited. The Secretary for War is hereby directed to carry out the provisions of this section with full force and effect

That very drastic law is in force to-day in the United States, and so satisfied are the Defence authorities with the present system, that Congress has since granted nearly $2,000,000 to be devoted to the objects on which the profits of the canteen were previously expended. With the great example of the United States before us, I can. confidently commend this Bill to the support of the Senate. I am glad to know that the measure has the approval of the late Minister of Defence, Mr. McCay, M.P., and also the support of the present Minister of Defence. I have already said that in this matter die climatic conditions of Australia ought to be taken, into consideration. In a colder climate like that of the United Kingdom, or the United States, the effect of hard drinking may not be so apparent as in Australia.

Senator Col Neild:

– Does the honorable senator mean to imply that hard dunking is permitted in canteens?

Senator PULSFORD:

– The honorable senator must not interrupt. I do not wish for one moment to have it implied that I reflect on our soldiers ; but when drink is offered for sale by the authorities, or by persons with the sanction of the authorities - which is the same thing-

Senator Col Neild:

– Nonsense !

Senator PULSFORD:

– Under such circumstances young fellows, who enter the army as abstainers, or, at least, as temperate drinkers, mav be led astray, and, instead of becoming efficient soldiers, may fall victims, to the habit. Would any honorable senator have the hardihood to deny that the presence of drink in. canteens does have the’ effect occasionally - we will say occasionally - of leading certain men astray ? If only a few men are led astray, to that extent our Defence Forces are weakened. On these grounds I commend the Bill most warmly to the support of the Senate. I am not at all anxiousto force the Bill through to-day. If there is a feeling that there are opinions outside which ought to find expression here,

I am quite willing that there should be an opportunity before we finally decide the fate of the measure.

Senator Col Neild:

– Will the honorable senator consent to refer the Bill to a Select Committee ?

Senator PULSFORD:

– I see no occasion to send the Bill to a Select Committee. If I threw the measure” into the waste-paper basket, I would dispose of it just as effectually as I should if I consented to have it referred to a Select Committee, who would play with it for weeks or months until the session ended.

Senator TURLEY:
Queensland

– I have endeavoured to secure evidence In connexion with this subject, because I tlo not think that- we are entitled to deal with it without any evidence at all. So far, we have had no evidence submitted as to the Opinions of the people directly interested, or of persons outside Australia who have had a verv large experience of the subject with which this measure deals.

Senator Millen:

– Or of the necessity for it.

Senator TURLEY:

– Or of any necessity for it. Whilst I do not claim any particular knowledge of the working of these canteens, I have sought information as to the opinion of authorities in England and iii America on the subject. I have tried to discover what the opinion of the American authorities was before the passing of the American Act, and also after they had had some experience of its work- ing. Senator Pulsford has asked the Senate to pass the Bill, because he thinks it will be a check upon drinking. All the evidence I have been able to get goes to show that it will not. The operation of a similar law in America has certainly put down the supply of light wines and beer in . canteens, but the evidence of the United States Secretary of War, and of his Adiutant-General, and some of the commanders of the United States Army, is to the effect that the abolition of the canteens has driven soldiers out of barracks into drinking shops and brothels., and has forced them to become associated with very undesirable people, and that under the old system of canteens the men were very much better off.

Senator Findley:

– Thev are supplied with “ greased-lightning “ liquor outside.

Senator TURLEY:

– That is so. It was not the custom in canteens- in the United States to permit the sale of spirits.

Only light wines and beer were allowed to be sold. Senator Pulsford has correctly stated the steps that were taken in connexion with the passing of the American Act. But the United States military authorities had an opportunity to express their opinion regarding the question before the Bill was passed, and the opinions expressed ‘by competent men were at the time altogether ignored. I propose to quote some opinions expressed before the passing of the American Act, and after it had been in operation. When the Bill was brought before the American House of Representatives it was referred to a Committee, who asked for information from the United States War Office. I propose to make some quotations from “Report I 70[. House Reports of the First Session, 56th Congress, 1899-1900.” In a letter, dated “War Office, :6th May. 1900,” the American Secretary for War, Mr. Elihu Root, says -

I think the enactment of this Bill would be injurious to the temperance, morals and discipline of the enlisted men of the Army. I beg leave to refer to the paragraph upon this subject in the last annual report or the Secretary of War, pages 41 and 42, under the head of “ Post Exchanges,” which is as follows : - “ It will be perceived that the overwhelming testimony of the Army is to the effect that the present regulation has promoted the temperance, discipline, morals, and health of the enlisted men, and that in the interest of morality and effective service it should be retained. No change has accordingly been made in the regulation. In considering the testimony of these officers it should be borne in mind that enlisted men are not always on duty ; that during considerable portions of their time they always are, and necessarily must be, permitted to go outside of their camps and posts just as other citizens do, and that when they are thus at liberty it is impossible to subject them to restraints which are not also imposed upon the other members of the community. In States where the sale of intoxicants is permitted by law soldiers will drink outside the camp or post just as other people drink, and it cannot be prevented, except by confining them to the limits of the camp or post. This would not only be unjust and injurious, but would reduce enlistment to imprisonment, and immediately put an end to enlistments. The practical question to be considered is. not whether soldiers should drink or not drink, but whether they should be permitted to drink beer in the camp, surrounded by restraining influences of discipline and good association, or whether they should be driven to drink bad whisky in the vile resorts which cluster around the limits of every military post and camp, and especially around those in which prohibition is maintained. I have no doubt that the present regulation furnishes the wise answer to this question.

Elihu Root, Secretary of War.”

When this Bill was discussed in another place the opinions expressed by the Ad- jutant-General of the American Army were quoted, and it was represented that he was in favour of the legislation passed in America. The opinions quoted from this officer were expressed some considerable time ago, and I propose to quote those which he expressed at the time the measure was submitted 1:o him, and he had to make a report on the question.

Senator de Largie:

– Were the opinions which the honorable senator has just read expressed at the time the Bill was being considered-, or after the law had been .in operation for some time?

Senator TURLEY:

– At the time the Bill was before the House of Representatives of the United States. I quote now from a letter by General H. C. Corbin, the AdjutantGeneral of the United States Army, dated from the War Department, AdjutantGeneral’s Office, Washington, 15th May, 1900. This officer says - “Around the reservation of Fort Wingate in 1889,” says an official report on the file in this office, “ a number of little rum shops thrived on the earnings and weaknesses of the soldiers. Here crimes and debaucheries thrived, and after each pay day patrols were required to literally drag our soldiers from the clutches of the keepers of these dens. The guard-house was always full iri consequence of drunkards and absentees from duties, as well as those who had committed themselves in other ways, traced to the demoralizing effects of the soldiers’ innate craving after amusement and tipple of some character. The exchange system did away with all this. Those of us who were prejudiced against what was termed 1 a Government bar-room ‘ found the benefits of the new system so startling that it could not be combated : and now the improvements along the lines of morality and discipline have been so marked that officers fairly shuddered when, during the past few months, there was a possibility, through mistaken Congressional action of a return of the old system.” An instance in point more nearly , at hand is that of Washington Barracks, in this city. Before the introduction of the canteen, Fourandahalfstreet, for two or three squares from the point at which it enters the post, was lined with small saloons, in which liquor was dispensed to soldiers.

Almost immediately after the starting of a canteen at the barracks the effect was shown upon these establishments, and before the second month of the canteen had ended more than half the little saloons outside had closed up, and their proprietors had moved away. To-day, but one or two remain. The same was true of Fort Myer. Before the introduction of the canteen there were from ten to twenty low groggeries between the terminus of the street railway at Thirty-second-street and the entrance to Arlington, largely depended upon the patronage of trie troops at Fort Myer. To-day, after ten years of the canteen at the post, not more than two or three are left.

He gives a number of instances of the kind. I quote these remarks to show that despite the evidence of men. who knew what they were talking about, as the result of many years’ experience, the Act to which Senator Pulsford has referred was passed in the United States. The AdjutantGeneral concludes his letter in this way -

It should be borne in mind that the canteen is no more or less than a well-regulated club for the enlisted men ; that these exchanges are established by the soldiers themselves with their own means. Neither the Government nor any commissioned officers ever contributed one dollar to any of them. In the judgment of those most interested in the good of the service, this institution is a pronounced success as an active, progressive temperance measure, and the wonder of it all is that the professional temperance reformers are, in this resolution, allied with the aggressive saloon interests in their efforts to secure legislation to destroy it.

That was the opinion expressed bv a man who was referred to in another place as one who understood the subject, and who was a witness whose evidence could not be doubted. The American Bill was referred to the man who, I believe, is nt present the head of - the American Anm . Major-General Nelson A. Miles. He reported, as follows, from the Army Heartquarters’ Office, at Washington, under date 10th May, 1900 : -

Respectfully submitted to ‘the Secretary of War.

I have no recommendation to make in addition to those already submitted. Attention is invited to an extract of the enclosed order (G.O. 87, 1898), by virtue of which all commanding .officers are enjoined to restrict, or entirely prohibit, the sale of such beverages as would in any way impair the health, welfare, or discipline of their commands.

The General Order referred to contains the following : - ,

Commanding officers of all grades and officers of the medical staff will carefully note the effect of the use of such light beverages - wines and beer - as are permitted to be sold at the post and camp exchanges, and the commanders of all independent commands are enjoined to restrict or to entirely prohibit the sale of such beverages, if the welfare of the troops or the interests of the service require such action.

It has been said that there is quite a number of persons who are favorable to the abolition of this system. But in all the evidence which is submitted, I cannot find any one person with a large and varied experience who is not favorable to its retention. Some men who have made reputations in that country, and who, I believe, will be accepted by every honorable senator as an authority on the -subject, point out that it is not in the interests of the liquor traffic that they stand up for the canteen, because many of them have said1 that they would be better satisfied if every man under their command were a total abstainer, but because thev recognise that it is impossible for that idea to be carried out. They declare that if they had under their command men who were not total abstainers, the attraction would be greater when they went outside and drank than it was when the Government allowed them to be supplied with beer and wine in their camps. Writing at Washington, on the 1st Mav, 1900, MajorGeneral J. R. Brooke says -

Respectfully returned to the Adjutant-General, United States Army, Washington, D.C., with the remark that T think that a Bill of the character of that herewith inclosed, forbidding the selling of beer or wine in the post exchange, or canteen, or on transports, or upon any premises used for military purposes by the United States, would have a most unfortunate effect. The experience gained since the establishment of the post exchange and canteen has been such as to warrant me in saving th.it these institutions, under the regulations by which they are conducted, are not only highly beneficial to the Army, but have a decided influence for temperance and good discipline.

This afternoon we have had quoted to us the opinion of an eminent English surgeon, and I propose to quote the opinion of men who, for years, have been connected with the United States Army in that capacity, and who were lin favour of the canteens being allowed to remain as they were. Writing at Washington, on the 1st March, 1900, the Rev. C. C. Pierce, Chaplain of the United States Army, says -

Complying with your command, I have the honour to present herewith a statement as to my own personal observations in Manila along certain lines involving the physical and moral welfare of our troops. . . When I first saw Manila the streets were practically lined with little nipa huts, perhaps about 12 feet square, in which the natives were selling, at a merely nominal price, not only fruit and tobacco, but also native gin. These “ “in shacks” should certainly be included in the number of drinking places existing at the beginning, and their number was very large. The character of this native drink was so fiery and villainous that its effect upon such of our men as used it was deplorable. It became my duty to bun, two soldiers who never recovered from the effect of drinking it. One of them had been in the service about eighteen years, and received from his officers, in personal conversation with me, a commendation so flattering, with regard to his character for sobriety and soldierly honour, that it might bc coveted by any man. He had never been a drunkard, but this native poison was so virulent in its effect that he became maddened, and lingered in his delirium a whole week, never having recovered his reason at the time of his death.

Our authorities set to work to restrict this traffic by a system which finally resulted in its prohibition. I am not personally an advocate of any saloon, but I am forced to give my testimony that the substitution of regimental canteens in which only beer was sold, in place of this traffic in native gin, resulted in a most immediate and perceptible improvement in the sobriety of the troops.

I think that, in face df such evidence from men who know exactly what they are writing about, honorable senators should not be asked to vote for the second reading of this Bill without some inquiry being made from the men and the officers who would have to put up with the inconvenience or whatever might result from its enactment. So far, I have not read a word in Hansard to the effect that the men have been consulted. On the contrary, when the officers proceeded to ascertain the opinion of the men a noise was kicked up because they took that step upon their own responsibility. I propose now to read an extract from an article which the Rev. Henry Swift, Chaplain of the United States Army, contributed to the Army and Navy Journal of 24th February, 1900. It reads as follows: -

Where a thousand men, more or less, are gathered together, there is something more needed than a cot to sleep in, or a ration to draw and eat, or drills, guards, reviews, and fatigues to fill in the time. The men are strong and vigorous, craving for mental and physical diversion, and for some variation from the monotony of barrack’s fare. Generally to meet these wants some neighbouring town will offer an abundance of low, cheap, and vile entertainment, and become a source of demoralization at once. Saloons, gambling dens, low dance houses, brothels, are ever ready to batten on soldiers driven from the vacuousness of the garrison to seek amusement and occupation elsewhere. Why should not healthy, legitimate, orderly, and attractive diversion be provided in the post, and so much better and cheaper that a man would be but throwing money away to seek them elsewhere. … I wish the public, instead of fighting the exchange blindly, because of the canteen, would favour and ask for its better equipment, and they would find that in providing a varied departmental « system they would make the now hated canteen ils best attractive feature and conduce most materially to the order, happiness, and morale of the garrison.

I am inclined to think that it is always better -for us to ascertain what are the opinions of men who have had some experience than to act hastily, and pass legislation which might make things worse than they are. I d’o not know that any person has made a statement to the effect that the soldiers of Australia are drunkards. 1 know very well that, like ordinary citizens, some soldiers may at times drink a glass too many. But they would be fifty times worse if the canteens were abolished, and that is the reason why the evidence of men who know what they are talking about has been put into reports for the guidance of Parliament. Writing on the 26th March, 1900, Mr. O. S. Meskel, who is a member of the Board of Education, Highland Falls, New York, addressed the following letter to Lieut. M. H. Barnum, of West Point, New York : -

In Sunday’s issue of the New York Press I lead Hie views of a large number of army officers, including yourself, regarding the abolishment of the army canteen. How the army canteen has affected the discipline and the well being of the soldier is undoubtedly better known to’ the officers of the Army than to anybody else; and the effects of the canteen on the moral welfare of villages adjacent to military posts is quite as well known, Undoubtedly, to every citizen who has had an opportunity to observe its operation. If the abolishment would tend to destroy discipline at West Point and demoralize the soldier it would, in the same degree, lower the moral tone of this community by bringing back the vile conditions that prevailed here before the establishment of the canteen. The reestablishment of such conditions here would be a serious blow to the welfare of this village and greatly lamented by our best citizens. A drunken soldier is a rarity here now, where formerly drunken brawls and riots were of common occurrence among them. If the good people who are now striving to abolish the canteen succeed in their efforts we will have the same conditions here again, and instead of a quiet, peaceable town, without a single policeman, we will have disorder and drunken soldiers reeling through our streets.

– In February, 190 1. The Adjutant-General of the United States Forces, who was quoted in the House of Representatives as approving of the wiping out of canteens, asked for information to be supplied to the War Department at the end of six months after the law had been in operation. He wanted to know how it had worked, and the officers in command were asked to answer a number of questions. When the American Bill was introduced it was stated that a number of the men were in favour of the abolition of canteens, and that this step had been a success. There is a difference of opinion even amongst the officers. Colonel Ray, who was in charge at Fort Snelling, reported that up to the time he left that station, there had been no increase of drunkenness since the abolition of the canteen, but that a decrease was shown. He stated -

There has been no increase of drunkenness , since the abolishment of the canteen, but a decrease, as shown by the records, which, I am of the opinion, is partly due to the improved condition of discipline as well as the absence of the canteen.

He left Fort Snelling in September,1901. Then there is a report submitted, I suppose,by the officer who took his place, and dated 10th September, 1902. This officer reported -

I believe the introduction of beer into the post exchange, for sale, if the exchange is conducted on proper lines, is a benefit to the service. Its loss is felt more by the individual enlisted man than any one else. i am, sir, very respectfully,

Jacob Kline,

Colonel, Twenty-first Infantry.

I have looked through the whole of this volume, and I find no evidencethat the closing of canteens has been a success. I do find that there are some officers who have reported that since the passing of the Act things areno worse than they were before.Lately. however, a number of officers in command have stated over their signatures that things arevery much worse, and thatthey hope that the old system will be reverted to. I do not know whether there is any later information on the subject. I have hunted through the Library, and theonly additional information I can find consists of an article in the North American Review for September, 1903, and another in the same publication in 1904. These articles were written by two men who apparently have some connexion with the AmericanArmy.I wish now to quote from a despatch dated 3rd December, 1901. It is as follows: -

War Department,

Adjutant-General’s Office,

Washington, 3rd December, 1901.

Sir, - I have the honour to communicate to you the following remarks of the Secretary of War in his annual report to the President, dated 27th November, 1901 : -

The provisions of section 38 of the Act of 2nd February, 1901, prohibiting the sale of or dealing in beer, wine, or any intoxicating liquors by any person in any post exchange or canteen, or army transport, or upon any premises used for military purposes by the United States, have been carried into full force and effect, pursuant to the directions of the statute.

When the orders were issued for the enforcement of this section of the law, the command-, ing officers of the various posts and military organizations were directed to report upon its effects. A great body of reports have been received, which indicate that the effect of the law is unfortunate. I think, however, that a sufficient time has not elapsed to give the law a fair trial, and the observation and report of its working will be continued during the ensuing year.

Referring thereto, the Secretary of War directs that the instructions communicated inconfidential letter from this office on 5th. February, 1901, be renewed (with the exception) of section 2), andthat report thereunder be made to this office not later than 1st September,1902.

Geo. Andrews,

Assistant Adjutant-General.

The Commanding General, Department of……

A general order was issued by the War Department after the passing of the Act. and it was sent to every officer in chargeof a station in the United States. Most of the officers are satisfied that the Act has worked to the detriment of discipline, and of themorality of the forces. Here is areport from Brigadien-General Funsron.. He says -

Trials by Court-Martial.

During the period covered by this report, onecommissioned officer was tried by general courtmartial and acquitted ;194 enlisted men were tried by general court-martial for offencesclassified below : -

Then he gives a long list of particulars,, and adds -

As compared with the preceding year, the percentage of average enlisted strength tried bygeneral court-martial has nearly doubled. Twenty-five men were tried for violation of morethan one article of war at the same trial. Of the 194 men tried, fourteen were acquitted and. ninety-seven were dishonorably discharged from, the service.

– I have been in garrison towns, and have seen a good deal of drunkenness there. I know very well that the canteen system has decreased drunkenness. In fact, the officers in charge of the British) Army d’o not say a word in favour of doing away with canteens. Thev know very well that the system has done good. It has kept men from going outside, where the temptations to drink are much greater than they are in barracks. I quote from an officer who evidently knows what Be is talking about. He continues -

Gambling is universal in these “ dives,” and they are frequented by dissolute women. The soldier whose desire for a drink would ordinarily be satisfied by a few glasses of beer in the canteen of the post exchange, goes to one of these resorts, and does well if he escapes before he has spent or gambled away all his money, overstayed his leave, or engaged in an altercation. As a rule, the local authorities regard the existence of these places with indifference or approval, as it causes the soldier to spend his money in the community. The efficiency of the army or the ruin of a good soldier is nothing to them. There can be no reasonable doubt that most of the trials by general courts-martial and summary courts, at least so far as this department is concerned, are directly traceable to this cause. Since I have had command here, there has taken place the ruin and degradation of several noncommissioned officers of long service and fine record. In short, recent legislation bv Congress -on this question, so far as this department is concerned, has had no effect, except to. lower the discipline of the army, ruin scores of good soldiers, and fill the pockets of a lot of saloon keepers, gamblers, and prostitutes.

Senator Dobson:

– That is so; and I can quite understand the position. There are laws in Australia for the repeal of which the people have been asking for some time, on the ground that they are detrimental to the interests of the community, but which remain on the statute-book. The Bill deals with a question which politicians do not care to touch, bearing in view temperance organizations, which may prove adverse at the time of an election. But it is theduty ofevery man, who is elected to a responsible position, to speak his mind. At the last election, a lot of temperance circulars were sent out to candidates, and in one appeared the question, “ Are you prepared to abolish canteens ? “ To that question I returned a direct negative, and I am not now prepared to abolish canteens, which I believe to be established in the best interests of the menon whom we may some day have to depend for the defence of Australia. The members of our Military Forces occupy a peculiar position in the Public Service. They do not begin their duties and leave off at a regular hour, whenthey may put on their coats and go to their homes ; on the contrary, they live in barracks, and have to receive permission to go outside. There are no persons in the Government service who have less liberty than our soldiers in barracks; and under the circumstances it is better to provide facilities for the men to lead reasonably decent lives than topass a measure of the kind before us. Men are better and not worse for a fair amount of freedom, and desirable effects would not be produced by the restraint imposedby the Bill. The Association of Military Surgeons of the United States. . at its 10th annual meeting held at St. Paul’s, Minnesota, on 13th May, 1901, passed the following resolution : -

Whereas, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, now in session at St. Paul, recognises that the abolition of the army post exchange or canteen has resulted, and must inevitably result, in an increase of intemperance, insubordination, discontent, desertion, and disease in the Army : Therefore be it -

Resolved : That this body deplores the action of Congress in abolishing the said post exchange or canteen, and in the interests of sanitation, morality, and discipline, recommends its reestablishment at the earliest possible date.

Resolved : That it is the sense of this association to resolve its members in each State into a special committee to confer with their CongressionalRepresentatives and Senators, and interest them in the repeal of the so-called “canteen law.”

Resolved : That a Committee of seven, representing the United States Army, the Navy, and the Marine-Hospital Service, and the members of this association be appointed to confer with a committee from the House of Representatives and Senate in reference to the matter.

Resolved : That a copy of this resolution be sent to the committee on national legislation of the American Medical Association, and ask them to co-operate with the Association of Military Surgeons ; and

Resolved : That a sufficient number of copies of the paper be printed to furnish a copy to each Representative and Senator, and that a member of the association be designated to see that the copies are properly distributed.

James Evelyn Pilcher, Secretary.

Some two years ago, when passing through Rangoon, I had an opportunity of seeing an institute which appeared to me very much what soldiers require. On entering the building, I found myself in the temperance room - a spacious, airy apartment, in which 300 to 400- men were assembled. Some were playing games, others were talking and amusing themselves ; every one seemed at his ease, and there was an. air of comfort about the place which was very marked. Waiters were bustling about with tea, coffee, and light refreshments. Neither beer nor other intoxicating drinks were, of course,, allowed in this room. Passing on I came to another room, with “ Silence “ written in large letters over the door. This was the reading and writing room, and a goodly number of men were here.. Further on I found myself in theref’reshment room, which was much about thesame size as the temperance room. At one end of it was a coffee shop, where all kinds of oilmen’s stores and regimental necessaries could bepurchased at a cheap rate, and where very inviting looking suppers were being prepared. Small tables were scattered about, each covered with a clean white tablecloth, and with such conveniences as could be supplied without much expense. Here several men were enjoying their evening meal, with which those who wished for it could have beer brought to them from theneighbouring canteen. On going into the canteen, 1 noticed that it was nearly empty ; the men apparently preferred to have their beer with their suppers, or had drunk off their glass, and had gone to join their comrades in some other part of the building. Further on I was shown into a large room, which was occasionally used as a theatre. Here there were a number of men listening to a capital comic song whichwas being sung by a bluejacket from one of the ships. in the river. There was, as I said before, an air of real comfort about the whole place ; and I thought to myself, “ Is a soldier likely to prefer wandering about the dirty bazaars and back slums of Rangoon to joining the fun and partaking of the comfort of the Institute?” There is little doubt, I think, what the choice of (most men would be.

Lord Roberts spoke in the same way at Simla. He is a teetotaller, but he is aware that it is practically impossible to prevent the men in the Army from drinking. Hestates that he believes it is better that soldiers should be given facilities to obtain beer and other refreshments which they require, under the control of their officers, than that they should be permitted to go outside, as he states, “ into the dirty bazaars and back slums of Rangoon,” or of any other place in which they might be stationed. That is evidence to which we should pay some attention. Lord Roberts does not dream of suggesting that canteens should be abolished in connexion with the

British Army. He says that he will be glad to see the day when there is no drinking whatever by any one in the Army, but that is very different from saying that we should not give the men of the Army an opportunity to obtain the refreshments they require under reasonable, clean, and decent conditions. That they should be given facilities to obtain the refreshments they require under such conditions is all that those in favour of the canteen system advocate. Evidence was given before the committee to which I have referred by men belonging to the Royal Army Temperance Association. I believe that Lord Roberts was responsible for the establishment of that association when he was in India, and its operations have been extended to Great Britain by men who have been transferred from India. At the present time, according to the evidence of the secretary of the association, it numbers something like 35,000 of the men in the British Army. These men do not drink intoxicants1, but “the canteen provides for them as well as for those who do. In his examination, Lord Roberts gave this evidence : - 4711. Is there any point that you would like to bring before the attention of the Committee? - No, except to wish it all possible success in carrying out what is greatly my desire, to make the soldiers’ institute a comfortable place which the men will be attracted to go to instead of visiting public houses in the neighbourhood ; to make it in all matters respectable, where they -can have their games and their writing and theirreading. their eating, and their drinking, in moderation, and where everything is done to elevate the soldier. That is my great wish.

That is the opinion of Lord Roberts; but, knowing very well that it is impossible, he states that his idea in connexion with regimental institutes is to provide adequate accommodation and reasonable facilities for the men under his command. A number of questions were sent to Lord Kitchener, who, I suppose, knows pretty nearly as much on this subject as does Senator Pulsford. In reply .to the question -

What are your views as to the organization and management of a regimental institute, especially with reference to the wet canteen?

Lord Kitchener returned the following answer : -

I think all canteens and institutes should be run on co-operative lines. The wet canteens should be dealt with separately, and though enabling men to obtain refreshment, it should not be made into an ‘ attractive lounge. It should, in my opinion, be run more on, the lines of a railway refreshment-room, where tea, coffee, and sandwiches can also be obtained. , The profits -«»’ the wet canteen should be higher than those on dry goods, except in the case of one pint of beer, which, when served at the club, might be issued at the most moderate profits.

That the debate be now adjourned.

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

– The Senate is indebted to Senator Turley for the great amount of care and trouble which he has taken in presenting a mass of evidence in regard to this Bill. While I intend to vote against the second reading, I shall not do so on the same grounds as are taken up by the honorable senator. In the first place, I object altogether to the introduction of such a Bill. It is quite unnecessary. If the Minister of Defence had before him complaints from his officers as toany of their men being addicted to drink to such an extent as to impair the efficiency of the Military Forces, he could immediately order that arrangements should be made to prevent that kind of thing occurring. He could even direct the total prohibition of the sale of liquor to our soldiers and the closing of canteens. I challenge the Minister to say whether he does not possess that power.

Senator Playford:

– I could have done thatby regulation.

Senator CROFT:

Senator WALKER:

– Yes, local option.

As I say, I came here prepared to vote in the direction which I deemed to be proper ; and the more I look into the matter, the more ‘I am of opinion that the Government ought to have introduced the Bill if they thought it necessary. However, we have been informed that the Government do not think that a measure of the kind is necessary ; and I must say that the decision at which I have arrived is mainly the result of the informative speech to which we have just listenedfrom Senator Turley.

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

– I intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill, but not because I am an enemy of temperance, or even of total abstinence, where the latter may be necessary. It appears to me that the question presented to us is not whether soldiers are to be made more temperate than they are, and drunken- ‘ ness prevented, but whether we are to prevent the men from getting good, wholesome drink - if any drink may be said to be wholesome - whether we are to prevent them from getting the best of drink within barracks’ boundaries, subject to military discipline, in reasonable hours, and under conditions which are not likely to lead to excess, or whether we are to compel them to go elsewhere and obtain, possibly, inferior drink at a higher price over more extended hours. Military canteens are not restricted to supplying drink, but are a social affair amongst the soldiers themselves, the profits being devoted to useful purposes for their benefit. The following is an extract from a letter which appeared in one of the Sydney newspapers: -

The canteen in the Victoria Barracks, and those at the various out-stations, are conducted on co-operative lines, somewhat akin to the Gothenburg system, all profits on the sale of liquor being returned to the men in the shape of comforts of one kind or another. Liquor is sold at the lowest possible prices, and is of the best quality obtainable. For instance, a glass of spirits,which would cost 6d. in the city, is sold to the soldier in barracks at 3d., and other articles at equally cheap rates. The gymnasium, reading-rooms, billiard-rooms, football and cricket clubs, &c, are maintained out of the profits of the canteen, and each member of the Permanent Military Forces receives a gift at Christmas to remind him of the festive season.

Rights of Senate

Consideration resumed from 19th July (vide page 1489).

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

– I beg to move -

That the report of the Printing Committee, dated 19th July, 1906, be adopted.

– I do not defend the way in which thev gave expression to their opinion on a matter of economy. They expressed a right and a justifiable opinion, so far as economy is concerned, but they did so in the wrong way, and in a way which I cannot defend. I do not know that anything will be gained by passing the motion. I understand that a similar difficulty cannot arise again, because at the instance of Senator Neild the Senate passed a motion respecting the supply of official publications to members of the Federal Legislature, and I am informed that the Prime Minister has directed that members of both Houses are in future to be furnished with copies of all Commonwealth publications, the Acting Government Printer having been instructed accordingly. The motive which actuated the Printing Committee of the House of Representatives was certainly a good one, because their desire was to study economy, but they had no right to refer the matter to the Prime Minister, who, of course, had nothing to do with it. They made a very serious mistake in doing that. With respect to the resolutions at which the Printing Committee of the Senate have arrived, the first is -

That it is the right of the Senate to order the printing of any paper laid on the table of the Senate.

There can be no doubt that that is our right if we choose to exercise it; but I assume that we have no desire to exercise it in such a way as to involve the Commonwealth in unnecessary expense. The second resolution is -

That the action of the Senate in ordering any paper to be printed is not open to review by the Printing Committee of the House of Representatives.

– Does the Ministerbelieve that the Senate is not to be trusted to consider economy?

Senator PLAYFORD:

– I think that this motion will not secure economy. Attention has been called to the matter by what has already transpired, and that, I think, is all that is necessary. If, however, honorable senators desire to pass the motion, well and good.

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON (SouthAustralia) [6.25]. - I think it well, andat all events I am not sorry, that the Minister of Defence has thought it necessary to say a word or two before the motion is passed. The honorable senator, it seems to me, takes up a very curious position in assenting to every one of the resolutions submitted by the Printing Committee of the Senate, and at the same time deprecating the placing of them on record by the Senate. If we assent to the resolutions, it is our duty to back up the Printing. Committee by placing them on record. We have intrusted the Committee with the duty .of controlling printing, so far as it concerns the business of the Senate, and when we believe their action “to be right it is our duty to support them, just as it would be our duty, if we thought they had done wrong, to criticise them, and, perhaps, to express some strong opinion against what they had done. I take the view that the Printing Committee of the House of Representatives adopted a very unwise course, not merely in form, but in substance. I am not prepared to accept the position that the Printing Commitee, or any other Committee, of the House of Representatives can sit in judgment upon the proceedings of the Senate, or of any Committee appointed by the Senate. The Senate ordered , the printing of these documents, and it is perfectly immaterial whether the expense involved was 5s. or ^5. The Senate made the order, and the decisions of the Senate are not, it appears to me, to be called in review, as the Minister of Defence believes they may be, by the Printing Committee of the House of Representatives. I entirely disagree that the Printing Committee of the .House of Representatives, or even the House of Representatives itself, is entitled to sit in judgment upon the proceedings of the Senate, except in the ordinary parliamentary way. In that respect the Minister of Defence adopts a mistaken attitude, as he does also, I think, in deprecating our taking action to maintain the dignity of the Senate and of our Printing Committee. When he says that it must cause friction with the other Chamber> I should like to know who has caused this friction? In the first place we must attribute it to what Senator Playford has very justly described as the improper vote of censure passed upon the proceedings of the Senate and of a Committee of the Senate. In the next place it was wrong for the Committee of the House of Representatives to have transmitted that censure through the Prime Minister. We cannot be wise at all times, but I think it .was wrong for the Prime Minister to take it upon Himself to forward Ihe censure or to have anything at all to do with it. It would have been wiser if the honorable and learned gentleman had intimated to the Printing Committee of the House of Representatives that it would be well for them to reconsider their position, and to adopt a better course. The censure was forwarded, and it appears to me that we should now agree to the resolutions which the Printing Committee of the Senate have submitted. I cannot understand why the course that has been indicated should not have been followed ,in the event of the Printing Committee of the House of Representatives feeling that action had been taken concerning which they might make a suggestion to the Printing Committee of the . Senate in relation to the conduct of the business it has been appointed to control. When we appointed our Committee we gave them power to confer with, or sit as a joint Committee with, the corresponding Committee of the House of Representatives. Every facility was, therefore, given to enable a conference of the kind to take place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 7.45 p.m.

page 1851

GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S RESIDENCES BILL

» Second Reading.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill came from the other House last week, when it. was read a first time, and, although it is very small in volume, it is of considerable importance for very many reasons. It will be within the recollection of honorable senators that upon the last two occasions when the Estimates of Expenditure for the year were under consideration, the question of the up-keep of the Federal Government House at Sydney received consideration. If I remember aright, it was I who first called in question the necessity or desirableness of maintaining in the Commonwealth two establishments for His Excellency, namely, one at Melbourne, and one at Sydney; but I was not vouchsafed1, I may say with all respect to those who were in charge of the Estimates, the information which I have since had an opportunity of acquiring. Honorable senators can judge of the quantity of that information, if not of its quality, when they, observe the file which I have at my left hand. Most of these papers deal solely with the question of the Governor-General’s residence in Sydney. Some of them certainly deal with the residence of the Governor-General in Melbourne, but the great majority of the papers, which I have gone through most carefully during the last few weeks, deal with the whole question of the residence of His Excellency at Svdney for a portion of the year. Some time ago papers were tabled, I believe in the Senate as well as in the other House, containing correspondence which had passed between the Colonial Office and the Premiers’’ of New South Wales, and other intending federating Colonies, on the question of the place of residence and allowances of the GovernorGeneral when he should come to Australia. It will probably Le remembered, even apart from any official papers which, have been tabled, that just before the arrival of the first Governor-General in Australia, communications passed between the then Premier of New South Wales, Sir William Lyne, and the Colonial Office, urging that, for various reasons, the Governor-General should for a period of the vear reside in that State. The matter was submitted for the consideration of, not merely the Colonial Office, but also the Premiers of the other Colonies, and the correspondence which, has been tabled in Parliament since discloses that at a Conference of Premiers a majority had decided that it was advisable that, during the recess, at any rate, the Governor-General should reside in S olney, and should from time to time visit the other States. Those were circumstances which were not presented to me. nor did I advert to them, or have any knowledge of them at the time when I was calling in question the necessity or desirableness of maintaining two separate establishments in the Commonwealth for the GovernorGeneral. However, the question was again referred to when the item cropped up on the Estimates last year, and then the Government promised that, so far as it was concerned, there would be no payments mar’e in connexion with the maintenance and upkeep of the Government House at Sydney beyond the end of the current financial year, that is the 30th June last, and that, as far as any future expenditure in connexion with the maintenance of a Government House at Svdney was concerned, it should be made the subject-matter of a Bill which could be dealt with bv both Houses, apart from the consideration of the Estimates. This Bill has accordingly been introduced ; but I should mention that between the time when the Senate gave consideration to the matter last year, and the beginning of this session, negotiations have taken place between the Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of New South Wales. As a result of the negotiations, the Government of the Commonwealth is in this position : that if the Bill be passed, it will be enabled to make an arrangement with the State of New South Wales for the acquisition of Svdney Government House, for the purpose of a residence for the GovernorGeneral, for a period not exceeding five years, rent free, and subject only to the consideration that the house and its furniture shall be maintained in their present order and condition, and at the termination of the tenancy so handed back to the State.

Senator Staniforth Smith:

– Are not those the existing conditions ?

Senator KEATING:

– Yes.

Senator Walker:

– Has the Commonwealth never paid any rent?

Senator KEATING:

– No; and it has. not paid any rent for the occupation of the Melbourne Government House. The terms upon which the two houses have been occupied a,s residences for His Excellency have not been precisely similar. So far as Melbourne Government House is concerned,, negotiations were entered into between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of Victoria, and as a result an agreement was drawn up for a three years’ tenancy, with the option of a two years’ extension. It was drawn up so long after the tenancy had commenced that when it was forwarded for execution the Crown Solicitor of the Commonwealth pointed out that probably by the time it was executed the term would have run out, and consequently it was suggested that a five ears term, running from the original date.- should be the term of the lease. A lease was drawn up accordingly, and was forwarded for execution. Although it received official approval, still, for some reason or other, it was not signed, and apparently the counterparts had not been exchanged. So that His Excellency hasbeen in occupancy of the house upon what has practically amounted to a tenancy from year to vear. When it was first contemplated that Svdney Government House should be set aside by the State of New South Wales as a residence for the Governor-General during a certain portion of the year it incurred a considerable amount of expense. I am not quite certain about it, but if my memory serves me aright the amount expended by the State in refitting the house, and making it ready for the occupation of the Governor-General was about ,£20,000. I do not suggest for a moment that the whole of that expenditure was absolutely necessitated bv the fact that His” Excellency was going to occupy the premises. Probably a large portion of the expenditure would have been of value to the State as the owner of the property, whether His Excellency had continued to occupy it for a long or short period, or had discontinued to occupy it. But apart from that expenditure, the State took a lease of premises which have since been occupied by the State Governor as a residence, and Which, situated at Rose Bay, near Sydney, are known as Cranbrook.

Senator Col Neild:

– Built bv old Captain Towns, the founder of Townsville.

Senator KEATING:

– That statement is, I believe, correct. Since the last session of this Parliament negotiations, as I have said, have been taking place between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales. ‘ The term of occupancy of Cranbrook will run out on the 30th September next. Naturally enough, in view of the attitude of the Senate towards the whole question of the maintenance of the Government House in Sydney. the Government of New South Wales is desirous of knowing as early as possible in what position it stands with regard to an extension of its occupancy of Cranbrook. When it came to negotiate with the owner for the option of an extension of the term of occupancy, it was met with a distinct refusal. He had decided that he would not let the property any longer, but would cut it up, and sell it. In view of that fact, the only thing which the Government of New South Wales could do was to ask for the right to purchase, and now it has an agreement to that effect from the owner, but it has to exercise the option at a verv early date. It is for that reason that this Bill has been put in front of several orders of the day on the notice-paper. The State Government is desirous of knowing at the earliest possible date what is the position with regard to- a second residence for the Governor-General. If it is desired that His Excellency shall have a second residence afforded to him - a residence in Sydney as well as in Melbourne - then it will be necessary for the Government of New South Wales to exercise its option of purchasing Cranbrook as a residence for the State Governor, at any rate, for a period of years. The preamble of the Bil! says -

For the purpose of providing residences for the Governor-General pending the establishment of a Federal Capital : Be it enacted … as follows.

In clauses 2 and 3 it empowers the Governor-General to -enter into an arrangement with the Governors of Victoria and New South Wales respectively ‘ for the, use and occupation of the local Government House as a residence for himself. It is really a Bill to enable the Commonwealth to make the necessary arrangements for securing both of these houses as residences for the Governor-General, pending the establishment of the permanent Seat of Government of the Commonwealth. The position in regard to Victoria is that at present the Governor-General is occupying Melbourne Government House on what might be called a tenancy from vear to year. There is no definite agreement with the State of Victoria, nor is there any agreement, with, the State of New South Wales. The house that is now being used for the State Governor will soon revert to the owners of the property, who desire that the Government of New South Wales shall notify them not later thani the 1st August of this vear whether or not it intends to exercise the option of purchase. Both of these Government Houses have in the past been at the disposal qf the Commonwealth for occupation by the Governor-General rent free, the only obligation being in each case to maintain the furniture and belongings of the establishment, and to hand them over in good order and condition at the end of the term. All that we are asking in this Bill is for power to enable us to enter into arrangements for the continued occupation of those two houses on the existing terms. Honorable senators will probably remember having seen some time ago a notification in the daily press to the effect that it was intended to claim rent in respect of the occupation of these premises by the Commonwealth. I am in a position to say that there is to be nothing in the nature of rent paid bv the Commonwealth for either of the houses.

Senator Stewart:

– Has not Mr. Bent made a claim for rent?

Senator KEATING:

– It has been withdrawn. In the session of 1901-2 a paper was circulated, dealing with the GovernorGeneral’s establishment and the Executive Council. It was printed, and appears on page 835 of the General Parliamentary

Senator Stewart:

– It has been selected.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH.Then I shall say that it is a pity the question of the site has. not been settled before now ; and in my opinion the fault for the delay lies with the Parliament of New South Wales.

Senator Col Neild:

– That is perfectly true.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I am sure that in our legislation we always endeavour to carry out the spirit of the Constitution; and no one will contend that the framers of the Constitution intended us to sit for five years in Melbourne without having selected the Federal Capital Site. It is provided in the Constitution that pending the selection of a Capital Site in New South Wales the Parliament shall meet in Melbourne ; and putting aside the question of the apportionment of the blame for the delay, we have to consider in our legislation the interests of the whole people of Australia, and not those of any particular State. But the people of New South Wales have reason to complain of. an injustice in that the spirit of the Constitution has not been carried out, so far as the selection of the Capial Site is concerned. The agreement that we shall be asked to ratify is one in which, as I have said, New South Wales is treating the Commonwealth with the greatest generosity. Each of the States Governors, who occupy positions of somewhat less importance than that of Governor-General, has two Government Houses : and that is the case, not only in Australia, but also in New Zealand. The agreement will give the Governor-General also two Government Houses free of expense ; and we should be unjust to a person occupying that high position if, in view of the facts I have presented, we provided him with only one residence. We should not put the Governor-General in a worse position than that occupied by the Governors of the various Slates. If New South’ Wales is willing to continue an agreement which has enabled us to overcome a very great difficulty, we should thankfully accept the offer. I ask honorable senators to consider what would have been the result if the Government of Victoria had said, as they had a perfect right to do, that they were concerned only with the legislation of Victoria, and provided a State Government House only for the State Governor. They might have said, “It is not for us to say where the GovernorGeneral shall reside. That is a matter for the Federal Parliament.” If they had adopted that attitude, no one could have blamed them, but we should have been obliged, at very great expense, to obtain one or two residences in which to house the Governor-General and his staff. New South Wales and Victoria in generously coming to our assistance by providing for he use of the Governor-General the two finest, mansions in Australia have treated the Commonwealth extremely well. I hope that in the interests of Australia, we shall as soon as possible select a site for the Federal Capital in New South Wales.

Senator Pearce:

– I thought that we had done so.

Senator STANIFORTH SMITH:

– I mean that we shall reach finality in connexion with that question.

Senator PeArce:

Senator STEWART:

– I have no doubt that the honorable senator could give very good and sufficient reasons for changing his mind. Speaking here on the 13th December, 1904, he said -

Why should one State be singled out for special treatment? The Governor-General must, of course, have a residence in Victoria while the Seat of Government remains in Melbourne. If we maintain a separate establishment for him in New South Wales, we should do the same thing in Queensland, South Australia, and Tasmania -

I do not know why he omitted Western Australia, but apparently he did. which he intends, I understand, to visit in the near future. If the money is paid in respect to a Government House used bv the State authorities as well as by the Governor-General, I would like to know why similar arrangements are not .made in regard to the other States, all of which the Governor-General is expected to visit. Is the Commonwealth committed in perpetuity to the maintenance of a Government House in New South Wales merely for the pleasure of a few people in that State? This seems to be like throwing a sop to Cerberus.

To-night the honorable senator appears in the position of a sop-thrower to Cerberus. On that occasion he was throwing bricks at Cerberus, but now he is throwing sops.

We are trying to placate the people of New South Wales, who are dissatisfied because the Seat of Government is not fixed in Sydney, and cannot be located within a hundred miles of that city. Does the Governor-General visit New South Wales more than any other State ?

To that inquiry Senator Symon said “Yes.”

Is there any reason why he should do so? Victoria is the State in which he is domiciled. Even if he visits New South Wales more frequently than he visits the other States, why should we maintain a residence for him there all the year round ? How many months in the year has the present Governor-General resided in Sydney ? He has been in Queensland for a longer period, 3 think, than in New South Wales. Is there any reason why we should provide £250 for the lighting of a Government House which is used only occasionally, or £20 for flags, or £100 for china and glass, and £1,000 for the maintenance of the grounds? Surely the Government of New South Wales is able to extend hospitality to the Governor-General when he visits that State, and does not expect the Commonwealth to provide £3,000 to relieve her of that responsibility.

I might read a good deal more of what Senator Keating said on that occasion, but I think that I have quoted sufficient. The crux of the whole question lies in “the last sentence which I quoted. If the Government or people of New South Wales are anxious that the Governor-General should spend a certain portion of the year in that State, then they ought to defray all his expenses. If Senator Keating were to invite any one to his house as a guest, surely he would not ask him to contribute towards the cost of his entertainment ! No person would dream of. doing such a thing, but that is exactly what the Government of New South Wales is doing. It is inviting the Governor-General to spend a portion of his time within its territory, but a portion of the cost of entertaining that official is- to be borne by the people of the Commonwealth. I fail to see any reason why there should be a residence for the Governor-General in Sydney. If the Seat of Government were at the Capital city - at Dalgety, or wherever it might be - then Sydney would have no right to claim that His Excellency should live there during a. portion of the year. Such a claim, I am sure, would be scouted as ridiculous by the representatives of the people of the Commonwealth. The Seat of Government being in Melbourne, all that the people of the Commonwealth can fairly be asked to do is to provide a residence here for His Excellency. I quite agree with what Senator Keating said two years ago. This is nothing more nor less than a sop to Cerberus. There are half-a-dozen Cerberuses in the Commonwealth, and is a sop to be thrown to each ? Is the Governor-General to live in only New South Wales and Victoria? Is the light of his countenance never to shine on any other portion of the Commonwealth ?

Senator Millen:

– Is he not in Queensland now?

Senator STEWART:

– I see that His Excellency is making a flying visit to Queensland. I am glad to learn that he has been received in a right, royal fashion by the people of the State, and I am sure that if they were anxious that he should live there they would not come to this Parliament, and, through it, ask the Commonwealth to bear a portion of the expense of his visit. On the contrary, they would plank down the money, even if they had to borrow it, to pay for his entertainment. I am sure that the people of the other States would take up an exactly similar position. I am sure that we are all verv economically minded. Time and again each honorable senator has dwelt upon the importance of being careful about the cash, and yet I find that considerably over £30,000 has al read v been expended upon the two residences for the GovernorGeneral. Half that amount, I am sure, has been spent on the Svdney establishment. Let honorable senators consider how reckless it is to throw away -£15,000 for nothing. I suppose that if I were to figure it Out to the last, farthing it would amount to somewhere about £20,000. This is a great country, with, very magnificent possibilities, and with a huge overdraft, which is usual lv considered to be a sign of respectability; but it cannot afford to throw away -£20,000. Let us imagine what the Senate could do with that sum. I think that I could spend the money much more effectively, and place it where it would do a much greater amount of good than by simply throwing it away upon a residence for the Governor-General in Sydnev. I find that even the Sydney Morning Herald did not look with too favorable an. eye. on this arrangement. On the 27 th November, 1905, the following paragraph appeared in its columns : -

Government House, Sydney. - The end of the year will see the termination of the arrangement entered into between the first Federal Government and that of New South Wales, under which Government House was made available as the vice-regal residence of the Governor-General in this State. It is understood the Federal Government is anxious to continue the arrangement. On the other hand, it is stated that the State Government is not enamoured of the proposal to renew the agreement. In political circles also the opinion is expressed that the arrangement has proved a most costly and inconvenient one to this State. The renovation, repairs, furnishing, rent, and upkeep of Cranbrook, the temporary residence of the State Governor at Rose Bay, has involved an expenditure of over ^20,000. This sum had to bc expended, notwithstanding the fact that the Governor-General’s residence is empty nine months in the year. It is suggested that the possession of Government House for the State Governor should be resumed, and an allowance should - be made to meet the extra expenditure during the three months’ stay of the GovernorGeneral in the same establishment. The lease of Cranbrook, the State Governor’s residence at Rose Bay, terminates at the end of next year. If the suggested arrangement were carried out the rental as well as the upkeep of Cranbrook would be saved. It is anticipated that something definite will be done in the matter in a few days.

I agree with the suggestion of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a very sensible one. A special allowance should be granted to defray the cost of entertaining the GovernorGeneral during such time as he may choose to live in Sydney. That would be a better plan than continually coming to this Parliament to ask for money for such useless purposes as maintaining a separate residence in, Sydney. I feel very strongly upon this subject. I have come to the conclusion that the proposal is merely made for the purpose of placating the Government of New South Wales. After the insulting remarks made about the Commonwealth and the action of this Parliament by certain members of the New South Wales Government last vear, I do not think that the Senate should entertain a proposal of this character for a single moment. I have not the slightest objection to provide a residence for the Governor-General in Victoria. That is a responsibility which we are bound to discharge to> the very best of our ability, But if the Governor-General is to obtain a residence in New South Wales at the expense of the Commonwealth, I shall move that a, residence be also provided for him in Queensland ; and I am sure that senators from the other States will follow suit. Then, instead! of imposing upon the taxpayers an expenditure of £5,000 or £6,000 for an unnecessary residence for the Governor-General, we shall find ourselves landed in an outlay of about £20,000 per annum. Honorable senators should take a reasonable view of the matter. I remember that on the last occasion when it was discussed, Senator Walker stood alone as a representative of his State. All the other big guns from New South Wales were for the time being dismantled. There was only one “ Long Tom “ to defend the position. On this occasion, however, the New South Wales senators have assembled in force, I intend to vote against the second reading.

Senator Pearce:

– Then the honorable senator will vote against the Melbourne arrangement.

Senator STEWART:

– I do not want an arrangement to be made for any term longer than a year, because it is quite possible that within two or three years we may have moved to the Federal Capital, where a residence will undoubtedly be erected for the Governor-General.

Senator MACFARLANE:
Tasmania.

– The last two speakers have said that they have not heard anything new as to why the determination of last vear should be altered. I was not aware until lately that the arrangement to have a residence for the Governor-General in Sydney was1 made before Federation was actually accomplished. When the Australian delegates were in London discussing the details of the Constitution with the Imperial Government, the Premiers of the States met in Melbourne, and telegraphed to London to this effect-

Majority agree to residence Governor-General in New South Wales during recess, but consider he should visit other Colonies.

Senator Givens:

– Had the Premiers the right to bind this Parliament?

Senator MACFARLANE:

- Mr. Chamberlain acknowledged that telegram, and our first Governor-General came out to Australia on the understanding that there was to be a residence for him in Svdney. It was an honorable understanding.

Senator Pearce:

– Was it to last for ali time?

Senator MACFARLANE:

– Until the Federal Capital was established. I consider that we are bound, as honorable men, to carry out the arrangement.

Senator Pearce:

– It was carried out in the case of the first Governor-General.

Senator Col. NEILD (New South Wales) [9.9]. - While I congratulate Senator Walker on the very able manner in which last vear he solely represented the interestsof New South Wales, I think that Senator Stewart, who has not only mentioned thefact, but rubbed it in, ought to have remembered that at the time one of the New South Wales representatives was on what was pretty generally understood to be his death-bed. If he was not here he could not be blamed for hisabsence. Senator Stewart also talked at large to the effect that if New South Waleswanted to have a residence for the GovernorGeneral in Sydney she should pay for it. I have yet to learn that any State of the Commonwealth has acted with the generosity that New South Wales has done in this matter. As Senator Keating- very properly and lucidly pointed out in introducing this Bill, New South Wales has not only provided . for the Governor-General a. residence free of charge ib the Commonwealth - furnishing that residence afresh for His Excellency’s occupation at very great cost to herself - but she was the only one of the Australian States which, in addition to the taxation necessarily imposed on her people by the Constitution, voted an additional sum of between £3,000 and £4,000 to augment the salary of the Governor-General. I had the honour to be one of the members of the New South Wales Parliament that passed the Bill for that purpose.

Senator Givens:

– But New South Walesnever paid the money.

Senator Col NEILD:

Senator KEATING:

– What I said was that it seemed to be a sop then. There was no explanation forthcoming, not even from any New South Wales senator; and any one who peruses the report of that debate will see that I asked repeatedly on what principle we were supporting two Government Houses, and why New South Wales was singled out. The answers to those Questions might have been easily furnished ; but until I had an opportunity to go through the file I was absolutely unaware of die fundamental principle on which the Sydney Government House had come into the possession of the Government.

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

– Why does the honorable senator not say that he was mistaken, and be done with it?

Senator KEATING:

– I was mistaken, but I was absolutely unaware of the circumstances. In moving the second reading of the Bill - which, as honorable senators will see, is down in the name of the Minister of Defence - I stated distinctly that I did not know what the conditions were until I had perused the papers. I think honorable senators appreciate the situation, and realize, as I do, that we are making a good bargain. At the time referred to bv Senator Stewart I did not know, as the very words themselves show, that Svdney Government House was in the exclusive occupation of the GovernorGeneral. As the quotation read by Senator Stewart makes plain, I asked a question, in view of what I understood to be the circumstances, namely, that the Government House in Sydney was in joint occupation of the State and the Commonwealth authorities. I was unaware of the circumstances surrounding the occupancy, and I must say that when I asked for information no honorable senators seemed able, or, atany rate, disposed, to furnish it. I have no hesitation, in view of what I have learned since, in moving the second reading of the Bill.

Question - That the Bill be now read a second time - put. The Senate divided.

AYES: 18

NOES: 2

Majority … … 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee :

Clause 1 -

This Act may be cited as the GovernorGeneral’s Residences Act 1906.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– If clause 3 should be negatived, as I desire, a verbal amendment will be necessary in this clause. We shall have to substitute the word “residence” for the word “residences.”

Senator Stewart:

– The honorable senator should move the postponement of the clause.

Senator Keating:

– We can decide the matter on this clause.

Senator GIVENS:

– I propose a merely formal amendment in this clause, and we can have a further fight when we reach clause 3. When I am fighting anything I try, if possible, to do so from every ditch. I move -

That the word “ Residences,” line 2, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ Residence.”

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 -(Arrangement for use of Government House, Sydney).

Question - That the clause stand part of the Bill - put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 12

NOES: 7

Majority … … 5 ‘

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Stewart) pro posed -

That the following new clause be added : - “3A. The Governor-General may enter into an arrangement with the Governors of Queensland and Tasmania for the use and occupation by the Commonwealth, for a period not exceeding five years, of residences for the Governor-General.”

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– The new clause proposed by Senator Stewart is an excellent one so far as it goes, but I do not think that it goes far enough. The Bill, as it stands, provides for a residence in each of two of the States of the Commonwealth. Senator Stewart’s amendment would provide for a residence in each of two other States, but there would still be two more States left out in the cold.

Senator Col Neild:

– What is wrong with British New Guinea?

Senator GIVENS:

– British New Guinea is not yet a State of the Commonwealth. I hope that it will by-and-bv rise to that dignity, and I trust that when that time arrives there will be no discrimination against it. I move, by ‘way of amendment -

That the proposed new clause be amended by inserting after the word t; Tasmania,” line 4, the words “ South Australia and Western Australia.”

Ave shall see whether honorable senators are as loyal as they profess to be to the Constitution, which provides that there shall not be any discrimination between State and State. Those who vote against my amendment will show that they desire that there shall be such a discrimination, which would be just as objectionable as a discrimination in a trade matter. They will show that they are prepared to single out one State for the enjoyment of a special distinction! and favour, which apparently they are not prepared to grant to every other State. This Parliament should not make any discrimination of that kind.

Senator Millen:

– I ask whether the new clause is in order, seeing that it will involve an additional burden on the taxpayers if it is adopted. The clause is one which, if carried, will entail a larger expense upon the Commonwealth than would be entailed by the “Bill if passed in its present form. In the circumstances, I think that it is not in order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Dobson:
TASMANIA

– It appears to me that the clause is only permissive, and therefore, if agreed to, it will not necessarily increase the expenditure. I therefore rule that it is in order.

Senator GIVENS:

– I suppose I am at liberty to proceed now that the point of order is disposed of. I have no desire to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but I wish to emphasize my contention that honorable senators should not be guilty of any discrimination between State and State, because the Senate was constituted expressly for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of the States. It is for that reason I have sought to enlarge the scope of the new clause proposed by Senator Stewart, and I hope my amendment will be carried.

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

– I would point out to honorable senators that, so far, no negotiations have taken place between any Government of the Commonwealth and the Government of any of the States which are indicated in the amendment. The Bill deals solely and wholly, at present, with arrangements which have been entered into by the Commonwealth Government with the Governments of Victoria and New South Wales respectively. It is for the ratification of the effective agreements « which have been entered into, and the nature of which I have already indicated that it is, submitted. Although the amendment might be adopted, there would be no obligation thrown upon the Executive to enter into any such agreements. It would absolutely initiate negotiations for such a purpose. I do not know that any GovernorGeneral, so far, has indicated a desire to have a permanent or even a temporary residence in either of these States. For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will not agree to either proposal.

Senator GIVENS:
Queensland

– I wish to read to the Committee the section of the Constitution with regard to discriminations between the residents of different States. There are three or four sections dealing with the question of discrimination. But section 117 reads -

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen, resident in such other State.

– Or, as the honorable senator suggests, basking in the light of the Vice-Regal countenance. If that is the case, there must be some rare virtue in these opportunities. If they are of any value to the people of Sydney, why not extend the benefit to the society people in Brisbane, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth? It is actually proposed to give the people of Melbourne and Svdney a special advantage over the people in the remaining portions of the Commonwealth. I do not know whether that is, as Senator Givens argued, a violation of the Constitution, but if it is not, it looks uncommonly like it. I am sure that the Constitution never contemplated that the Governor-General should have a residence in Sydney. It only provides that the Capital shall be in New South Wales. So careful were the people of the Commonwealth to protect the GovernorGeneral and the Parliament of the Commonwealth against the evil influences which so abound in Sydney that they actually said that the Federal Capital should not be nearer to that city than one hundred miles. And yet, notwithstanding their expressed will, the Government wishes to plant the Governor-General in the midst of Sydney. When it is proposed that His Excellency shall have the benefit of the balmy airs of Brisbane, the fresh and bracing atmosphere of Hobart, and the delightful climate of Adelaide, the Government oppose the proposal, and various honorable senators refuse to support ii. I hope that honorable senators will vote for the proposed addition to my amendment.

Question - That the words proposed to be inserted in the amendment be inserted - -put. The Committee divided.

AYES: 5

NOES: 13

Majority … 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of the amendment negatived.

Proposed new clausenegatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without’ amendment; report adopted.

page 1869

ADJOURNMENT

Division Bells

Motion (by Senator Playford) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

– This afternoon, when the division wastaken on my Bill to amend the Electoral Act, a member of the Senate was engaged in a room upstairs, where, it appears, the division bell does not ring. It is a room at the end of the lobby used by the members of the Labour Party in the Senate. I suggest that a bell should be fixed in the room. A meeting of a section of the Tariff Commission was being held, and through the bell not ringing those present were not aware that a division was being taken.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will have the matter looked into.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at10.6 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 July 1906, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1906/19060726_senate_2_32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate26 July 1906

QUESTION

DEPORTATION OF KANAKAS

Senator WALKER:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

QUESTION

TARIFF COMMISSION’S REPORTS

Senator CLEMONS:TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator CLEMONS:

Senator PLAYFORD:

Senator CLEMONS:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

POSTAGE ON HANSARD

Senator STEWART:QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator Stewart:

QUESTION

POST AND TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT: TASMANIA

Senator PEARCE:for Senator O’Keefe

Senator KEATING:Protectionist

TRANSFERS OF OFFICERS

TELEPHONE REGULATIONS

The PRESIDENT:

PAPERS

ELECTORAL BILL

Second Reading

Senator PEARCE:Western Australia

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Staniforth Smith:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Pulsford:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator PEARCE:

Senator KEATING:Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator Pearce:

Senator KEATING:

Senator Keating:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator Stewart:

Senator Sir JOSIAH SYMON:

Senator MILLEN:New South Wales

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator Mulcahy:

Senator Trenwith:

Senator MILLEN:

Senator MULCAHY:Tasmania

Senator Stewart:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator Pearce:

Senator MULCAHY:

Senator HENDERSON:Western Australia

Senator TRENWITH:Victoria

Senator Pearce:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Croft:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Croft:

Senator TRENWITH:

Senator Sir Josiah Symon:

Senate
26 July 1906

Senator WALKER:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · PROT

Senator CLEMONS:
TASMANIA

Senator PLAYFORD:
Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · Protectionist

Senator STEWART:
QUEENSLAND

Senator KEATING:
Minister (without portfolio) · TASMANIA · Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
for Senator O’Keefe

Senator KEATING:
Protectionist

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator KEATING:
Honorary Minister · Tasmania · Protectionist

Senator MILLEN:
New South Wales

Senator MULCAHY:
Tasmania

Senator HENDERSON:
Western Australia

Senator TRENWITH:
Victoria

Senator WALKER:
New South Wales

Senator CROFT:
Western Australia

Senator DE LARGIE:
Western Australia

Senator PEARCE:
Western Australia

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT

Senator Lt Col NEILD:
NEW SOUTH WALES · FT